Expert: Marco - 1/7/2009

Question
QUESTION: Dear Marco,

You said you do not answer multiple questions, but I asked you only one question.  I just wanted to know whether you thought my analysis was incorrect.  I was not trying to get into a debate, and I certainly wasn't trying to offend you.  I am just curious as to why Christians believe what they do even though it is very clearly contradicted in the Torah.  There are elements of the Christian narrative that are quite alluring and beautiful, but of course much of the good stuff (the Beatitudes, i.e. the Sermon on the Mount) consists of quotes from the Torah anyway.  According to the Torah, salvation comes from leading a righteous life, not just from "having faith."  For a gentile, the seven Noahide laws represent the guide for leading a good life that would be rewarded in the World to Come.  In the Torah, there is not one mention of "original sin."  According to the original blueprint, man is not born a sinner, but with the free will to decide how to respond to life's temptations.  With Christianity's eschewing of the laws of Moses, it became essentially a religion of irresponsibility.  

I doubt that you will answer me, so may I leave you with one thought?  I believe you would be intellectually transformed if you read the book "Twenty-Six Reasons Why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus" by Asher Norman.  One can get it on Amazon.  You'll be astonished.  

All the best,
Bruce




ANSWER: Dear Bruce,

the essental reason why I believe in Christ is that I found the christian message convincing. The most convincing part of the christian message is the following:
God loves us so much that He makes Himself man and accepts an atrocious suffering and death in order to save us from our sinful and unhappy existence and lead us to the true and eternal happiness.
This is an absolutely new concept of divine love which came into history through christianity.
I believe that each of us needed know that God was willing to accept such a terrible suffering for us, in order to really trust God. Every man needed that proof of love, and God, who knew this, has accepted to give him what man consciously or unconsciously asked to Him. Jesus had to suffer and die that way to convince us about God's goodness and God's love towards us. It is man's obstinate distrust against God that has forced God to give man that proof of love, the proof he needed to trust God. By His death on the cross, Jesus destroys our distrust and our doubts, and He gives us the strength to believe in Him and trust Him. This means that each of us is personally responsible of Jesus ' sufferings and death. This distrust, this lack of faith in God, as well as the excess of trust in oneself, is just the essence of the original sin. Blinded by his pride, man rejects God's authority and prefers to trust himself, instead of His Creator; man deludes himself to be able to be independent from God, to be the god of himself. But God only is the source of all true good and true love. Man is unable to pursue the true good with his only strengths; man needs God, His teachings, His spiritual help, and so, after his rebellion against God, he gets deeper and deeper into a vortex of sin, which he can get out of only if he allow God to change his evil and impure heart. God in fact loves us infinitely, and He desires to lead each of us to the true life and true happiness, a condition existing only in God. But God cannot tolerate evil and sin, because they are incompatible with His good and holy nature. A deep interior change is then necessary for all of us to reach the eternal happiness; we must be sanctified and purified from all our evil and sinful desires. God has the power to change us but He wants to do that with our consent. Since He has chosen to create man with a free will, He wants to respect our will. Man cannot really accept to be changed by God and he cannot be in comunion with God as long as even a shadow of doubt and distrust remains in his heart ( it must be stressed that such a distrust may exist even without the man is aware of it, at the unconscious level). God had to destroy every shadow of doubt and distrust in our heart and He has chosen to give us the greatest proof of love that may exist: Christ's Passion. Christ's Passion has reconciled us to God because it has uprooted from our heart, our distrust and doubts about God; it has satisfied our (conscious or unconscious) desire and need of a proof of love, so that it has given us the strength to trust God and feel loved by Him.

In conclusion I think that the greatest error of your religion is the idea that man can save himself by himself, without God's help; this is a grave sin, the sin of pride. I think that a christian is more humble than a jew, because he accepts the idea to need God's help at every instant of his life. Let me quote then some verses from the Gospel of Luke, chap 18:

9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[a] himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

As I told you, I am not here to debate. I respect your religion, but I have honestly explained some of the reasons why I am christian.
If you are interested in delving into these arguments, you can certainly write again. On the contrary, if your purpose is to try to convince me that your religion is the right one, please stop writing.

Your brother in Christ,

Marco  





---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Dear Marco,

Thank you for those answers.  I am not trying to convince you that any other religion is better.  In fact, you are assuming that I’m Jewish, but I never said that.  I am actually investigating all religions, trying to decide which one is best for myself.  So your answers go a long way to helping me understand Christianity.  I have put a lot of thought into this issue, as I’m sure you see.

There is no question that much of the Christian message is compelling, especially when taken at face value.  Please help me understand the following.  You state that the most convincing part of the Christian narrative is that “God loves us so much that He makes Himself man.”  How does that not contradict statements from the Bible, such as:

Numbers 23:19 – “God is not man, that He should be deceitful, not a son of man that He should relent.”

1 Samuel 15:29 – “The Eternal One of Israel does not lie and does not relent, for He is not a human that He should relent.”

Hosea 11:9 – “… I will not carry out My wrath; I will not recant and destroy Ephraim, for I am God and not a man.”

Psalm 146:3 – “Do not rely on a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.”

Is it that you do not feel that these passages are correct, do you simply ignore them, or were you not aware of them?  Because obviously if these statements are correct, that essentially rules out Jesus’ divinity.

The Christian narrative states that Jesus was human and God at the same time.  He must have been at least partly human, since obviously God cannot die.  Jesus was sent to die, and died on the cross (and it is said that he was then resurrected, which of course confirms that he was “really” dead).  Therefore, God the Father and Jesus the Son must in some sense be separate entities, since at one point one of them was dead.  In fact, when Jesus cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” in Matthew 27:46, it confirmed that Jesus and God the Father were separate entities, because obviously one cannot forsake himself.  Jesus then “rose” and went to be with God the Father.  How does the Christian claim of Jesus’ divinity mesh with the statements from the Bible below?

2 Kings 19:19 – “So that all kingdoms on Earth may know that You alone, O Lord, are God.”

1 Chronicles 17:20 – “O Lord, there is none like you, neither is there any God beside you.”

Isaiah 44:6 – “I am the first and I am the last, apart from Me there is no God.”

Isaiah 45:5, 6 – “I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides Me there is no God.”

You said that a Christian is more humble than a Jew, because a person cannot achieve salvation without the help of God.  Besides being a very peculiar and irrelevant over-generalization, it appears that God does not agree with you.  For example:

Ezekiel 18:27-28 – “If the wicked man turn away from his wickedness that he did and performs justice and righteousness, he will cause his soul to live.  Because he contemplated and repented from all his transgressions that he did he shall surely live; he shall not die.”

There appears to be a serious problem with the concept of “vicarious atonement” from sin, as believed by Christians.  Firstly, it is clear that in the Bible each person is held responsible for his own sins.   Sin cannot be atoned by another.  For example:

Ezekiel 18:21-23 – “The righteousness of the righteous person shall be upon him and the wickedness of the wicked person shall be upon him.”

More importantly, the concept of “original sin” and the need for vicarious atonement is nowhere to be found in the Torah.  You are right that these concepts were new when introduced by Christianity.  But that’s the whole point.  The "Old Testament" and the "New Testament" were not introduced to the world at the same time, to allow each person to assess and balance which narrative to believe.  The "Old Testament" is the original blueprint.  Jesus himself (and his brother James, by the way) followed the Law of Moses.  He stated so in his Sermon on the Mount.  The New Testament must by definition conform to each and every prophecy and statement in the Old, unless one believes that the Old Testament does not represent the word of God.  But there's the problem.  If the Old Testament were not the word of God, then why did the Christian writers such as Matthew go out of their way to try to ensure that all of their narrative conforms, in their words, "as it is written in the Scriptures?"  Furthermore, how can Christianity introduce “new” concepts when the Bible states clearly that:

Deuteronomy 4:2 – “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor shall you subtract from it, to observe the commandments of Hashem, your God, that I command you.”

Deuteronomy 13:1, 32 – “The entire word that I command you, that shall you observe to do; you shall not add to it and you shall not subtract from it.”

Psalm 111:7-9 - "His handiwork is truth and justice, faithful are all his orders, they are steadfast forever, for eternity, accomplished in truth and fairness.  He sent redemption to His people. He commanded His covenant for eternity."

Psalm 19 - "The Torah of Hashem is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of Hashem is trustworthy, making the simple one wise; the orders of Hashem are upright, gladdening the heart; the command of Hashem is clear, enlightening the eyes; the fear of Hashem is pure, enduring forever; the judgments of Hashem are true, altogether righteous."

Psalm 119 - "With all my heart I sought You, do not let me stray from Your Commandments... Salvation is far from the wicked, for they sought not Your statutes... My tongue shall proclaim Your word, because all Your Commandments are righteous... Let my soul live and it shall please You, and Your ordinances will assist me."

And the very last and final message from God, through the prophet Malachi, states:

Malachi 3:22 - "Remember the Torah of Moses, which I commanded him at Horeb (Sinai) for all of Israel - its decrees and its statutes."

Christian theology requires one to believe that the very next thing God did after sending Malachi to remind the Jewish People to keep the Commandments was to send Jesus and Paul to tell the Jewish People NOT to keep His Commandments.  That is simply not logical.

Thank you very much for your expertise in trying to understand these complex concepts.  I really appreciate it.  Wishing you a Happy New Year,

Bruce

*****

ANSWER: Dear Bruce,

you wrote:

"There is no question that much of the Christian message is compelling, especially when taken at face value.  Please help me understand the following.  You state that the most convincing part of the Christian narrative is that “God loves us so much that He makes Himself man.”  How does that not contradict statements from the Bible, such as:

Numbers 23:19 – “God is not man, that He should be deceitful, not a son of man that He should relent.”  ....


I see no contradictions: the fact that God has made Himself a man does not mean He is a man. Jesus has both the human and the divine nature. He really died as a man, but He never died as God.

Then you wrote:

"The Christian narrative states that Jesus was human and God at the same time.  He must have been at least partly human, since obviously God cannot die.  Jesus was sent to die, and died on the cross (and it is said that he was then resurrected, which of course confirms that he was “really” dead).  Therefore, God the Father and Jesus the Son must in some sense be separate entities, since at one point one of them was dead.  In fact, when Jesus cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” in Matthew 27:46, it confirmed that Jesus and God the Father were separate entities, because obviously one cannot forsake himself.  Jesus then “rose” and went to be with God the Father.  How does the Christian claim of Jesus’ divinity mesh with the statements from the Bible below?

2 Kings 19:19 – “So that all kingdoms on Earth may know that You alone, O Lord, are God.”....

Again there is no contradiction between the concept of the Trinbity and the Bible.  God is one in three persons. You must undertsand that the aritmetic logic (1+1=2) applies only to material object, and it cannot be applied to spiritual entities.
I can give you an example from Psychology; man is usually considered an unity of two different entities: the "I" and the uncoscious, i.e the conscious and the unconscious self.

Then you wrote:

"More importantly, the concept of “original sin” and the need for vicarious atonement is nowhere to be found in the Torah.  You are right that these concepts were new when introduced by Christianity.  But that’s the whole point.  The "Old Testament" and the "New Testament" were not introduced to the world at the same time, to allow each person to assess and balance which narrative to believe.  The "Old Testament" is the original blueprint.  Jesus himself (and his brother James, by the way) followed the Law of Moses.  He stated so in his Sermon on the Mount.  The New Testament must by definition conform to each and every prophecy and statement in the Old, unless one believes that the Old Testament does not represent the word of God.  But there's the problem.  If the Old Testament were not the word of God, then why did the Christian writers such as Matthew go out of their way to try to ensure that all of their narrative conforms, in their words, "as it is written in the Scriptures?"  Furthermore, how can Christianity introduce “new” concepts when the Bible states clearly that:

Deuteronomy 4:2 – “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor shall you subtract from it, to observe the commandments of Hashem, your God, that I command you.” ....

The position of the Catholic Church is the God revealed the Truth to humanity gradually, step by step, exactly as we teach our children gradually. Through the prophets God prepared gradually the jews to be able to understand the Truth revealed at the proper time by Jesus.
So many verses of the Old Testament had only a temporary value, and were conditioned by the hardness of biblical people's heart. This is explained directly by Jesus in Matthew, chap. 19:

1 Jesus had now finished what he wanted to say, and he left Galilee and came into the territory of Judaea on the far side of the Jordan.  
2 Large crowds followed him and he healed them there.  
3 Some Pharisees approached him, and to put him to the test they said, 'Is it against the Law for a man to divorce his wife on any pretext whatever?'  
4 He answered, 'Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female  
5 and that he said: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh?  
6 They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh. So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.'  
7 They said to him, 'Then why did Moses command that a writ of dismissal should be given in cases of divorce?'  
8 He said to them, 'It was because you were so hard-hearted, that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but it was not like this from the beginning.  
9 Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife -- I am not speaking of an illicit marriage -- and marries another, is guilty of adultery.'  

Here Jesus Himself explains that the permit to divorce was given only because of the hardness of biblical people's heart.
Such a permit has then only a temporary value, and now that the Truth has been revealed, it is no longer valid.
The same is true for many other verses.

In conclusion there is nothing illogic in christianity; what is illogic are your wrong interpretations of christianity.
You must understand that the Bible was not dictated by God, but only inspired by God. The authors wrote using a language proper of their times and they were conditioned by the hardness of biblical people hearts. So the Old Testament reveals the Truth only partially, and the role of the prophets was to prepare gradually the jews to be able to understand the Truth, which has been revealed at the proper time by Jesus Chist.
The divine plan of Revelation is realized simultaneously "by deeds and words which are intrinsically bound up with each other" and shed light on each another. It involves a specific divine pedagogy: God communicates himself to man gradually. He prepares him to welcome by stages the supernatural Revelation that is to culminate in the person and mission of the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ.

Your brother in Christ,

Marco

PS. Please avoid multiple questions







---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Dear Marco,

I appreciate your thoughtful answers.  As you might expect, I have just one or two more questions, then I will cease pestering you.  

You wrote that Jesus has both the human and divine nature.  Did Jesus know that?  The fact that he said “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” seems to imply that he was not really in communication with God.  If he were really divine and part of the God triune, he would have to know what God was thinking, and obviously would not have proclaimed such a bewildered and helpless statement.  If 1 + 1 + 1 really equaled 1 as in the Christian view, it seems that such a “disconnect” could not occur.  What is even more peculiar is that when Jesus appeared to his disciples after being resurrected, he stated (in Luke 24:37-43) “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.”  Then Jesus asks his disciples “Have ye here any meat?”  They “gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.  And he took it, and did eat before them.”  

From this paragraph, it is clear that Jesus did not think of himself as God.  Furthermore, God would not have to ask anyone if there were any meat around.  One would expect God to know that type of thing.  The picture of God sitting and eating meat and sucking on a honeycomb is not consistent with the original concept of monotheism.  If one says that it was the human part of Jesus speaking, then he was apparently unaware of his divine nature.  Does that make even the slightest sense?  Your example of a human mind having conscious and unconscious levels as a metaphor is not credible.  A human mind, even though it contains different levels of consciousness, is not considered two distinct entities or beings.  

It seems that, in order to believe the Christian narrative, one must start with the Christian belief first, without any knowledge or understanding of the Old Testament.  When trying to justify the Christian narrative against the obvious contradictions contained within it, one must analyze “through the lens of a Christian,” so to speak.  If one’s vantage point is first a knowledge of the Torah, as was the case for the majority of the Jews living in Israel at the time of Jesus, and among many Jews today, there is no way that this new narrative could be accepted, because it is so obviously flawed.

I presented you with many of these flaws.  For instance, I quoted six absolute requirements for Messiahship contained in the prophecies of the Torah.  Jesus did not meet any of those criteria.  God states that the Torah is “perfect,” that the Commandments are to be followed “for eternity, forever, for a thousand generations, for all the days, for always.”  These statements do not contain any room for maneuvering.  “Forever” and “for eternity” do not mean “for awhile” or “for a couple of centuries” or “until the next guy comes along.”  There is absolutely no justification for trying to change their meaning because of someone’s fantasy of “having a hardened heart” or any other manipulation.  You stated that “many verses of the Old Testament had only a temporary value.”   Where did you get that?  How does “a temporary value” derive from “forever… for eternity…”?  When the Bible states that the Torah is “perfect,” and that “you shall not add to the word that I command you, nor shall you subtract from it,” there is no indication of wiggle room.  “Shall not” means “shall not.”  Whatever Jesus (or Paul) said in the New Testament is irrelevant unless one can demonstrate that all the prophecies in the original blueprint support his claim of divinity.  If the prophecies are not fulfilled, then Jesus is not divine, and is not the Messiah.  Did Jesus fulfill all the prophecies?  Was he a descendant of David through the seed of Solomon (see the genealogical record in Luke)?  Did he rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem?  Did he oversee the gathering of the exiles returning to Israel?  Was he anointed and recognized to be king of Israel?  Did he bring peace to the entire world?  Did he oversee knowledge of God throughout the entire world?  Did even Jesus’ own prophecies come true?  He claimed that his kingdom would occur “before this generation (his disciples) passes away and tastes death.”  Did that occur 2000 years ago?  Was he in the ground for three days and three nights?

Was Jesus’ behavior always consistent with his own teaching?  Jesus taught “I tell you not to resist an evil person, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also (Matthew 5:38, 39).  But in John 18:22-23, after being slapped across the face by a Roman soldier, he states “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why do you strike me?”  In other words, rather than “turning the other cheek,” Jesus argues with the soldier.  

Jesus said in Matthew 5:43-44, in quoting Leviticus 19:18, “You have heard that it was said, you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.  But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.”  However, Leviticus does not say, “hate your enemy.”  That was a misquote of God’s law.  If anything, the Torah repeatedly commands one to treat one’s enemies with kindness and decency (Leviticus 19:18, Exodus 22:21, 23:4, Proverbs 24:17, 25:21). Furthermore, when Jesus spoke of his own enemies, he said, “But bring those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me” (Luke 19:27).

Did Jesus ever sin?  You would think that God himself would not sin.  In the Bible, there is an absolute prohibition of destroying fruit trees, even those of an enemy in time of war (Deuteronomy 20:19).  Unfortunately, there he goes again.  In Matthew 21:18-19, Jesus curses and destroys a fig tree because it wouldn’t produce its fruit for him, even though it wasn’t the season for figs.  What’s really problematic about this event is that, as “God,” Jesus should have had the power to cause the tree to bring forth fruit, rather than spitefully cursing and destroying it.  

Was Jesus always factually correct?  In Matthew 23:35, Jesus stated, “that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on Earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.”  Unfortunately, Zechariah was the son of Jehoiada, not Barachiah (2 Chron 24:20-21).

So, Marco, with all these examples, why would anyone searching for a religion for guidance and spiritual growth choose Christianity?  It appears replete with contradictions, errors, and absence of foundational credibility.  You wrote that I “must understand that the Bible was not dictated by God, but only inspired by God.”  I’m just wondering how you know that.  That is not the belief expounded in the Old Testament.  Is that your personal opinion?  Your claim that the Old Testament “reveals the Truth only partially” is in direct contradiction to the word of God, who states many times in the Bible that the Torah is perfect and complete, and to be followed forever.  Despite what you implied about lack of humility in Judaism, the Jewish religion appears to have an infinitely more solid foundation, provides a powerful path to salvation, and lacks all the mumbo jumbo and contradictions of Christianity.  

With that, I bid you a happy new year.  I am looking forward to receiving your answer, which I will allow to be the final word between us.  Thank you very much for your help in understanding a very complex and controversial subject.  

Bruce

*****


Answer
Dear Bruce,


I think this conversation could be easier if you asked only one question, anyway below you can find my answers to your questions.

>>>You wrote that Jesus has both the human and divine nature.  Did Jesus know that?  The fact that he said “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” seems to imply that he was not really in communication with God.  If he were really divine and part of the God triune, he would have to know what God was thinking, and obviously would not have proclaimed such a bewildered and helpless statement.

I believe that the second person of the Trinity (the Son) renounced to part of His divine knowledge when He assumed the human nature.
So Jesus was born anaware as a human babe, then He gradually became aware of His divine nature.
Jesus' last words to me means that He was really dying, and in death He felt the loss of His constant contact with the first person of the Trinity (the Father). You must understand that when Jesus prayed, He always prayed the first person of the Trinity (the Father).
I strongly disagree with your interpretation of Jesus' last words: in fact, the point is not to know what God the Father was thinking, but the point is the loss (through death) of the contact with Him.

>>>>  If 1 + 1 + 1 really equaled 1 as in the Christian view, it seems that such a “disconnect” could not occur.


I disagree again; you seem not to understand the concept of the Trinity; in fact the three persons of the Trinity are separate as persons, but they are one as substance.



>>>>  What is even more peculiar is that when Jesus appeared to his disciples after being resurrected, he stated (in Luke 24:37-43) “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.”  Then Jesus asks his disciples “Have ye here any meat?”  They “gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.  And he took it, and did eat before them.”  
From this paragraph, it is clear that Jesus did not think of himself as God.  Furthermore, God would not have to ask anyone if there were any meat around.  One would expect God to know that type of thing.

The fact that Jesus asked those questions does not means that He didn't know the answers; also in the Old Testament God asked questions to some men, even if He perfectly knew the answers (see for example Genesis chap. 18, God asks to Abram where Sara is).
The reason why Jesus chose to eat with them was to prove to them that He was not only an hallucination (in fact no allucinations can eat food).


>>>>The picture of God sitting and eating meat and sucking on a honeycomb is not consistent with the original concept of monotheism.

I disagree. There nothing in contradiction with monotheism here.


>>>It seems that, in order to believe the Christian narrative, one must start with the Christian belief first, without any knowledge or understanding of the Old Testament.  When trying to justify the Christian narrative against the obvious contradictions contained within it, one must analyze “through the lens of a Christian,” so to speak.  If one’s vantage point is first a knowledge of the Torah, as was the case for the majority of the Jews living in Israel at the time of Jesus, and among many Jews today, there is no way that this new narrative could be accepted, because it is so obviously flawed.

I totally disagree. I see no flaws and as I have already explained the reason why I believe in Christ is the greatness of His message.


>>>I presented you with many of these flaws.  For instance, I quoted six absolute requirements for Messiahship contained in the prophecies of the Torah.  Jesus did not meet any of those criteria.  God states that the Torah is “perfect,” that the Commandments are to be followed “for eternity, forever, for a thousand generations, for all the days, for always.”  These statements do not contain any room for maneuvering.  

I disagree. I have already explained that those words were used to speak to primitive people and had then only a temporary value.
I see no reasons to repeat these concepts again and I'll stop here.

Your brother in Christ,

Marco